Doe 7 v. University of Kansas
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER finding as moot 8 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim; granting in part and denying in part 17 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim; granting 20 Motion to Amend Complaint. Signed by Chief Judge J. Thomas Marten on 02/16/2017. (aa)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
JANE DOE 7,
Case No. 16-2458-JTM
UNIVERSITY OF KANSAS,
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Plaintiff Jane Doe 7 brought this an action against the University of Kansas (“KU”),
asserting four claims: hostile educational environment under Title IX of the Education
Amendments of 1972 (Count I); retaliation under Title IX (Count II); disability discrimination in
violation of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Count III); and violation of the Kansas Consumer
Protection Act (Count IV). KU seeks dismissal of Counts I and II in its Motion to Dismiss
Amended Complaint (Dkt. 17).1 Plaintiff opposes the motion and seeks leave to file a second
Amended Complaint (Dkt. 20). For the reasons stated below, the court grants in part and denies
in part KU’s motion to dismiss, and grants plaintiff’s motion for leave.
Plaintiff’s counsel also represents Daisy Tackett, who brought similar Title IX claims
against KU. Tackett v. University of Kansas, Case No. 16-2266-JTM. Both Tackett and plaintiff
were allegedly sexually assaulted at the Jayhawker Towers by John Doe G (JDG). They were
also both former members of the KU Rowing Team, they allegedly witnessed or were subjected
KU had filed a motion to dismiss the original complaint on May 27, 2016 (Dkt. 8). That motion is moot in light of
the filing of the Amended Complaint on August 17, 2016 (Dkt. 14). Accordingly, the court denies KU’s initial
motion to dismiss the petition (Dkt. 8) as moot.
to the head coach’s “relentless” commentary on weight and body shape, and were allegedly
denied the opportunity to attend winter training in Florida in retaliation for reporting the sexual
assault and the coach’s mistreatment of the rowing team members.
The court recognizes that the alleged facts in these cases differ with respect to the
circumstances surrounding the sexual assault, post-assault contact with JDG, and the experience
with the head coach. Nonetheless, the allegations supporting the Title IX claims are sufficiently
similar to warrant the same treatment. For the reasons stated in the Memorandum and Order in
Tackett’s case (Dkt. 38), the court grants in part and denies in part KU’s motion to dismiss. The
court concludes the Amended Complaint fails to state a plausible Simpson claim against KU.
Plaintiff, however, has pled sufficient facts to allow her to offer evidence to support her claims
that KU was deliberately indifferent to her report of harassment by JDG and the head coach, and
that she was denied the opportunity to participate in winter training for reporting the harassment.
Like Tackett, plaintiff seeks leave to add factual allegations that KU misrepresented to
her the punishment JDG received to further support her claim that KU was deliberately
indifferent to her rights under Title IX. Because this case is in the early stage of litigation, the
court finds no undue delay in seeking to add these allegations. The court also finds no undue
prejudice in allowing the amendments because they simply bolster the deliberate indifference
claim and do not raise a brand new claim. Finally, having concluded that the Amended
Complaint survives dismissal, the court finds the proposed amendments are not futile for the
same reasons. Accordingly, the court grants plaintiff leave to file her proposed Second Amended
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that KU’s Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. 8) is DENIED as
moot; that KU’s Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint (Dkt. 17) is GRANTED IN PART and
DENIED IN PART; and that Plaintiff’s motion to amend the Amended Complaint (Dkt. 20) is
GRANTED. Plaintiff shall forthwith file the Second Amended Complaint.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 16th day of February, 2017.
s/ J. Thomas Marten
Chief United States District Judge
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?